On Timing
My last post, the one about soft sciences, may or may not have some people thinking about a certain chain of events that has been unfolding for the past several weeks. While I'm still sticking to my guns on it, I'd like to clarify that the soft sciences post was not in reference to the other drama.
The reason there may have been some parallels drawn is that the other drama is a feminist issue, so I'd like to state for the record that in this issue, I am firmly in agreement with the feminist side. This is a matter of regular, non-radical and non-transphobic feminism, and as I have said before, regular (particularly intersectional) feminism is something I can always agree with.
To expand upon this idea, I have in the past lamented the fact that any opposition to radfem ideas tends to label the opponent as a rape apologist(or worse). What I would like to clarify is that I do not mean to say that there are no rape apologists (or worse) opposing radfem ideas. I'm just saying that one doesn't automatically denote the other. Indeed, in the midst of the recent drama I have had the great displeasure of reading several comments opposing the feminist side, and once again my blood was brought to a boil*, as these comments were made by clearly dangerous sexists.
What makes me even madder is that such comments tend to fuel the idea that people who oppose any aspect of feminism are rape apologists(or worse). It fits neatly into my prior analysis of soft sciences, giving radfems another example of something that's true SOME of the time that lets them pretend it's true ALL of the time.
Of course, such venomous words (and they truly are venomous: one of the comments went something like "You shouldn't worry about me raping you, because if I wanted to I'd have done it already." DAMMIT NOW MY BLOOD IS BOILING AGAIN WHY DO I TYPE THESE THINGS OUT) are never acceptable, and so I'm throwing my hat into the ring to say KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF, SERIOUSLY.
*It's got to be posing some sort of health risk at this point, and I'm wondering if I have a case against the people who keep making me rage. Any lawyers out there?
The reason there may have been some parallels drawn is that the other drama is a feminist issue, so I'd like to state for the record that in this issue, I am firmly in agreement with the feminist side. This is a matter of regular, non-radical and non-transphobic feminism, and as I have said before, regular (particularly intersectional) feminism is something I can always agree with.
To expand upon this idea, I have in the past lamented the fact that any opposition to radfem ideas tends to label the opponent as a rape apologist(or worse). What I would like to clarify is that I do not mean to say that there are no rape apologists (or worse) opposing radfem ideas. I'm just saying that one doesn't automatically denote the other. Indeed, in the midst of the recent drama I have had the great displeasure of reading several comments opposing the feminist side, and once again my blood was brought to a boil*, as these comments were made by clearly dangerous sexists.
What makes me even madder is that such comments tend to fuel the idea that people who oppose any aspect of feminism are rape apologists(or worse). It fits neatly into my prior analysis of soft sciences, giving radfems another example of something that's true SOME of the time that lets them pretend it's true ALL of the time.
Of course, such venomous words (and they truly are venomous: one of the comments went something like "You shouldn't worry about me raping you, because if I wanted to I'd have done it already." DAMMIT NOW MY BLOOD IS BOILING AGAIN WHY DO I TYPE THESE THINGS OUT) are never acceptable, and so I'm throwing my hat into the ring to say KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF, SERIOUSLY.
*It's got to be posing some sort of health risk at this point, and I'm wondering if I have a case against the people who keep making me rage. Any lawyers out there?